Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Delhi High Court
Used Jewellery Worn By Passenger Falls Within Ambit Of Personal Effects, Same Is Exempted From Detention By Customs Department: Delhi High Court
|The petitioners had approached the Delhi High Court seeking the release of goods detained by the Customs Department.
The Delhi High Court has held that the detention of jewellery, which is the personal effect of the passenger, would be contrary to law. Referring to the Baggage Rules, 2016, the High Court also reiterated that used jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects, which would be exempted from detention by the Customs Department.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking the release of goods detained by the Customs Department vide Detention Receipt dated February 7, 2025.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “Thus, it is now settled that the used jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects in terms of the Rules, which would be exempt from detention by the Customs Department.”
“In view of the above, considering the facts of the case and the documents placed on record including the photographs, it is clear that the detained jewellery are the personal effects of the Petitioners”, it added.
Advocate Priyanshu Upadhyay represented the Petitioner while SSC Harpreet Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners, who are husband & wife and senior citizens, are residents of Andhra Pradesh. They had travelled to the United States of America to visit their daughter and were carrying a pair of traditional gold kada (detained jewellery) as a gift for their granddaughter. The weight of the detained jewellery is stated to be 99 grams each. Since their daughter did not accept the detained jewellery, the Petitioners brought the same back from the USA. The wife was stated to be wearing the detained jewellery when the couple arrived from the USA, and upon arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi, they were intercepted by the Customs Department when the detained jewellery was seized. The Petitioners also placed photographs on record to show that the detained jewellery is personal effects of the Petitioners.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that the detained jewellery appeared to be used personal gold items of the Petitioners. Reference was made to Rule 2(vi) read with Rule 3 of the Baggage Rules, 2016, which says that the Petitioner would be permitted clearance of articles, free of duty in their bona fide baggage, including used personal effects.
“The issue whether gold jewellery worn by a passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects under the Rules, has now been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court as also this Court”, the Bench said. Reference was made to the judgment in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Ors. v. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017) wherein it has been observed that it is not permissible to completely exclude jewellery from the ambit of ‘personal effects’. Reiterating that used jewellery worn by the passenger would fall within the ambit of personal effects, which is exempted from detention by the Customs Department, the Bench held that the detention of the same itself would be contrary to law.
“Accordingly, the detained jewellery would be liable to be released on this ground itself. However, there are other issues that are required to be considered in the present matter…”, it said.
Coming to the issue of show cause notice, the Bench explained that once the goods are detained, it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice and afford a personal hearing to the Petitioner. The time prescribed under Section 110 of the Act is a period of six months. However, subject to complying with the requirements therein, a further extension for six months can be taken by the Customs Department for issuing the show cause notice. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench found the detention to be impermissible as one one-year period had elapsed, yet no show cause notice was issued. “In view of the above discussion, the detained jewellery is liable to be released”, it added.
However, considering the fact that the Customs Department has given a notice of personal hearing to the Petitioners, the Bench ordered, “The Petitioners may appear before the Customs Department on the said date, either by themselves or through their authorised representatives, and the concerned officer shall consider the documents which may be presented by the Petitioners and release the detained jewellery within a period of four weeks. No storage charges would be liable to be paid, in the facts of this case.”
Cause Title: Krishna Reddy Kundam & Anr. v. Commissioner of Customs (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4374-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Priyanshu Upadhyay, Ajay Singh, Ashish Panday, Akshat Raghuwanshi, Pushpank Pandey
Respondent: SSC Harpreet Singh, Advocates Suhani Mathur, Jai Ahuja